Democrats Declare War On Words 'Husband,' 'Wife'

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

I introduce my partner as "my partner."

When we get married in a few years, he will be "my husband."

Perhaps there is an inequity in the structure of the laws when your so-called "wifely extras" are factored in?

He will be your husband, and you will be his husband? If you adopt a child, then get a divorce, who will get the child? Now, the courts usually give the wife custody with visitation by the father (husband) and child support? She usually gets the house as well.

How will that work in a same-sex scenario?

It will be as it SHOULD be for all couples, regardless of sex. The concept of female bias when it comes to divorce/custody/property is infuriating.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

I introduce my partner as "my partner."

When we get married in a few years, he will be "my husband."

Perhaps there is an inequity in the structure of the laws when your so-called "wifely extras" are factored in?

He will be your husband, and you will be his husband? If you adopt a child, then get a divorce, who will get the child? Now, the courts usually give the wife custody with visitation by the father (husband) and child support? She usually gets the house as well.

How will that work in a same-sex scenario?

Not being a fortune-teller, I can't predict the future.

In terms of the hypothetical, I would guess that as in every other custody case after divorce that has ever been brought before a judge, the facts will be weighed and their best verdict rendered?

It is hardly "automatic" that women always receive custody at this point in history.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

I introduce my partner as "my partner."

When we get married in a few years, he will be "my husband."

Perhaps there is an inequity in the structure of the laws when your so-called "wifely extras" are factored in?

He will be your husband, and you will be his husband? If you adopt a child, then get a divorce, who will get the child? Now, the courts usually give the wife custody with visitation by the father (husband) and child support? She usually gets the house as well.

How will that work in a same-sex scenario?

That's not necessarily true anymore. In the past, courts may have automatically deferred custody rights to the mother but we've seen that slowly change over time to whereas the courts consider other mitigating factors before assigning a custodial parent.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Only 1 in 6 fathers get custody of the children. The law leans toward the mother receiving custody along with child support....yes, even nowadays.

A battle for custody is extremely expensive. I can now see a new specialty on the horizon...lawyers who specialize in the unique problems of same-sex divorces. $$$$$$

a reply to: queenofswords

Why would it be any different than a standard court proceeding? Sex of the claimants should not matter in the eyes of the law. Either a shared custody agreement would be worked out, or the most competent parent will get full custody is the other is incapable or otherwise destitute.

Lollipops and jellyspoons.

Should be neutral enough eh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

I introduce my partner as "my partner."

When we get married in a few years, he will be "my husband."

Perhaps there is an inequity in the structure of the laws when your so-called "wifely extras" are factored in?

He will be your husband, and you will be his husband? If you adopt a child, then get a divorce, who will get the child? Now, the courts usually give the wife custody with visitation by the father (husband) and child support? She usually gets the house as well.

How will that work in a same-sex scenario?

It is hardly "automatic" that women always receive custody at this point in history.

YES! But, women still tend to be the primary caregiver of young children in opposite sex partnering. Logically that would mean the woman usually gets custody.

I believe most parents (whether same sex or opposite sex) think what is best for the children.

Relationships have definitely changed in my near 70 years. I think we're actually starting to grow up.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yes. Do you seriously NOT see the problem?

We have gone from marriage equality to gender abolition. How many gays do you know who call their partner husband or wife no matter what gender they themselves are? So why is marriage equality now an opening to abolish gender related words in marriage in the "name of equality?"

I seem to be missing the public outcry on this.

It's like turning Dylann Roof into an anti-Flag hate campaign.

Should we next demand that we abolish the words "cat" and "dog" in the name of "companion animal equality?"

Words are important and have meaning for a reason and they are used for a reason, and you should pay especial attention to what words are or are not used in law. It has major implications.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
As much as it irritates people, semantics count when it comes to the wording of a law. I don't see why "spouse" is some horrible alternative to "husband" of "wife."

yeah....geez why would anybody get bent out of shape from the use of "spouse"....we have bigger problems in this country than arguing about this.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Gryphon66

Only 1 in 6 fathers get custody of the children. The law leans toward the mother receiving custody along with child support....yes, even nowadays.

A battle for custody is extremely expensive. I can now see a new specialty on the horizon...lawyers who specialize in the unique problems of same-sex divorces. $$$$$$

Do your stats address joint custody? Do you have a link?

Was my previous answer insufficient? Won't a judge still make the best judicial decision possible?

And, are you against attorney's plying their trade for the greatest profit???

Odd.

a reply to: ketsuko

Do you ever use the word "spouse" to refer to your husband?

Has your husband ever used the word "spouse" to refer to you?

Aside from taking the opportunity to grind your usual axes, what is the big deal to you if "spouse" is added to the laws so that they address everyone equally?

originally posted by: ketsuko

Should we next demand that we abolish the words "cat" and "dog" in the name of "companion animal equality?"

Should the cat and dog get a lawyer and fight it out in court?

This is mostly about legal forms.

Forms have 2 lines. Line 1: husband/wife/partner/other. Line 2: husband/wife/partner/other.

Or maybe just: Spouse/other. So much simpler. And saves on ink

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: theantediluvian

And Texan ...

Well, I wouldn't touch anything out of the Chattahoochee ... maybe the North Georgia lakes ... when I was kid we ate catfish out of the local creeks all the time ...

... but still not the Chattahoochee, not even 40 years ago ...

Pfffft, these days I live a few miles from the Delaware. I'm leery eating anything that rode in a truck over a bridge crossing that filthy mess let alone swam in it.

a reply to: Annee

Yes, I know that the courts have traditionally, when joint custody was not awarded, awarded it to the woman in the relationship.

I have never thought the "automatic" nature of those laws or those practices was completely fair, but, hey ...

What is best for the children is for the parents to stay together. Barring that, every solution is "the lesser of two evils."

Maybe, if we actually are "growing up" as a culture, we will be more respectful to what a marriage is, and further, before we involve kids in our situations, we will understand the level of our commitments?

Again, I would wonder, if we're out to preserve marriage, shouldn't we be considering an evolution of divorce?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh, it will be different. What if both husbands are capable and competent? What if both husbands are not in the least bit destitute? The female aspect will now be removed and same-sex divorce with children involved is going to line the pockets of lots of attorneys, especially those who "specialize" in same-sex divorce.

Courts generally give custody to the mother, not because the mother may have more rights to the children, but because the mother is usually seen as the more nurturing caregiver. The female of our species will die to protect her young. She is the one that suckled her infant, provided the physical and emotional element to help it thrive. Unless a woman can be shown as unfit, 1 out of 6 times the courts will assign custody to the mother.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you ever use the word "spouse" to refer to your husband?

Has your husband ever used the word "spouse" to refer to you?

Aside from taking the opportunity to grind your usual axes, what is the big deal to you if "spouse" is added to the laws so that they address everyone equally?

I get why it matters. Its just exasperating to see all the grandstanding going on, at least for me.

As far as what i call my wife...spouse, wife, ball 'n chain, old lady, woman, momma.....its all the same. And as far as checkboxes go, I couldn't care less. I mean, my hispanic wife will, once this change is made, be my caucasian spouse. LOL....its just made up anyway.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The Hooch has been in the red zone all year. No "shootin'" for me this year, LOL.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Understood. Everyone is tired of the folderol on this issue.

However, specific language in the law is important at times.

Issue blanket legislation noting that, limited by context, "husband" or "wife" means "legal spouse" should be enough to just move the heck on.

That's probably far too simple for the government, however.

a reply to: ketsuko

Wow the melodrama is thick in here.

"gender abolition"

Good grief. Let me ask you a question if I may; how many laws can you think of for which a gender specific pronoun would be somehow more useful than a gender neutral one?

"It's like turning Dylann Roof into an anti-Flag hate campaign."

Completely untrue. People have been trying to get the flag taken down in South Carolina since it was put up in 1961. Not a new controversy at all. It just took an overtly racially motivated mass murder to put conservatives politicians in a spot where it became hard for them to acknowledge that there might actually still be such a thing as racism because it's exceedingly difficult to dismiss gunfire as "political correctness."

Why don't we abolish ignorance and declare a war on disinformation?

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh, it will be different. What if both husbands are capable and competent? What if both husbands are not in the least bit destitute? The female aspect will now be removed and same-sex divorce with children involved is going to line the pockets of lots of attorneys, especially those who "specialize" in same-sex divorce.

Courts generally give custody to the mother, not because the mother may have more rights to the children, but because the mother is usually seen as the more nurturing caregiver. The female of our species will die to protect her young. She is the one that suckled her infant, provided the physical and emotional element to help it thrive. Unless a woman can be shown as unfit, 1 out of 6 times the courts will assign custody to the mother.

As you implying a father wouldn't die to protect his child? Because that's patently false.

The whole "mothers are more nurturing" thing is becoming a thing of the past as the rise of the working mom has given birth to a generation of "Mr. Mom"s and same sex couples who SHARE responsibility of nurturing a child. To imply that only mothers can give a child the nurturing they need makes you just a sexist as the men who held you back before the women's sufferage movement.